Gastric ulcer disease, a prevalent and persistent gastrointestinal condition, poses a significant challenge to global health systems, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries, where its burden contributes substantially to premature mortality rates. Defined by erosions or defects within the mucosal lining of the stomach, gastric ulcers can lead to severe complications such as upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, perforation, and, albeit less commonly, gastric outlet obstruction. These complications exact a heavy toll on affected individuals, leading to increased morbidity and mortality rates, thereby necessitating the development and implementation of effective preventive and therapeutic strategies (
1,
2).
The etiology of gastric ulcers is multifaceted, with
Helicobacter pylori infection and the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including aspirin, emerging as primary causative factors.
Helicobacter pylori infection, a common bacterial infection affecting a significant portion of the global population, plays a central role in gastric ulcer pathogenesis by disrupting the delicate balance of gastric mucosal integrity (
3). Concurrently, NSAIDs, widely utilized for their analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties, significantly elevate the risk of upper GI complications through the inhibition of mucosal prostaglandin production, impairing the stomach's ability to protect itself from injury (
4).
To mitigate the risks associated with gastric ulcer disease, gastroprotectant drugs have been developed and extensively employed in clinical practice (
5). These drugs, encompassing proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), prostaglandin analogues, and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), serve to safeguard the gastric mucosa, promote the healing of mucosal damage, and stabilize GI bleeding, thereby offering a multifaceted approach to gastric ulcer prevention and treatment. Among these agents, PPIs have emerged as the cornerstone of gastroprotective therapy, garnering support from systematic reviews and meta-analyses across various clinical settings (
6).
However, despite the widespread use of gastroprotectant drugs, a comprehensive understanding of their effects across different clinical scenarios remains elusive. Existing literature highlights a notable gap in knowledge regarding the comparative effectiveness of these agents in diverse contexts, including prevention, healing, and acute bleeding episodes (
7,
8). Moreover, the anatomical location of gastric ulcers, whether in the stomach or duodenum, may influence treatment outcomes and necessitate tailored therapeutic approaches.
In addition to addressing the efficacy of traditional gastroprotectant drugs such as PPIs, prostaglandin analogues, and H2RAs, our study aims to explore the emerging role of vonoprazan (VPZ) in gastric ulcer management. Recognizing VPZ's potent and enduring gastric acid suppression capabilities, as well as its potential to heal and prevent ulcers associated with NSAID and low-dose aspirin use, we seek to elucidate its comparative effectiveness against established therapies (
9).
Given the evolving landscape of cardiovascular disease management and the widespread use of antithrombotic therapies, our study will investigate the implications of these therapies on gastric ulcer risk and management (
10). With the advent of non-vitamin K antagonist direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and the complexities surrounding the discontinuation of antithrombotic therapy, particularly in patients undergoing dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), our analysis will provide insights into optimizing ulcer prevention strategies in this patient population. By synthesizing available data from a comprehensive literature search and conducting meta-analyses of RCTs, our study aims to inform evidence-based guidelines and optimize the use of gastroprotectant therapies in gastric ulcer prevention and management. Through meticulous analysis and rigorous assessment, we aspire to reduce the global burden of gastric ulcer disease and improve patient outcomes by providing clinicians with actionable recommendations tailored to diverse clinical scenarios and patient populations (
11,
12).
Additionally, our study will delve into the mechanisms underlying corticosteroid-induced GI complications, a subject of ongoing debate since the 1950s. Despite advancements in medical research, the rarity of GI bleeding and perforation events has hampered efforts to conclusively ascertain the risk posed by corticosteroid therapy through traditional RCTs. Consequently, attention has turned towards observational studies as a means to explore these rare adverse effects effectively (
13). However, the literature surrounding corticosteroid-induced GI complications reflects a landscape of uncertainty. In various databases and product monographs, descriptions of peptic ulcer disease and GI bleeding as potential adverse effects of corticosteroids remain inconsistent (
14). Clinical recommendations mirror this ambiguity, with conflicting assertions regarding the ulcerogenic properties of corticosteroids and the necessity of antiulcer prophylaxis. Notably, recent surveys underscore the persisting perception among practitioners of corticosteroids as ulcerogenic agents, prompting a widespread inclination towards ulcer prophylaxis despite diverging clinical opinions (
15).
The gravity of GI bleeding, peptic ulcer, and perforation as complications of PUD cannot be overstated, given their substantial morbidity and mortality rates. While NSAIDs and
H. pylori infection stand as primary risk factors for PUD, corticosteroid-induced GI complications remain a subject of intrigue due to their elusive pathophysiological mechanisms (
16). Proposed mechanisms include impaired tissue repair and the masking of ulcer symptoms by corticosteroids' anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties, potentially leading to delayed diagnosis and exacerbation of ulcer complications (
17). In light of these uncertainties, a systematic review aims to elucidate the association between systemic corticosteroid use and the risk of peptic ulcer complications such as GI bleeding or perforation. Given the inconclusiveness of observational studies, emphasis is placed on incorporating published studies with a randomized, controlled design (
18). The impetus for this review stems from the recognition of the potential implications of uncertainty in clinical recommendations and treatment guidelines, underscoring the imperative of evidence-based inquiry in guiding clinical practice.
Meanwhile, the global landscape of PUD management is further complicated by evolving trends in cardiovascular disease management. With the increasing incidence of cerebral and myocardial infarctions, antithrombotic therapy, including DAPT and non-vitamin K antagonist DOACs, has become commonplace. Consequently, attention has shifted towards balancing the risk of GI bleeding with the thromboembolic risks associated with antithrombotic therapy withdrawal, necessitating updated guidelines to navigate this intricate clinical terrain (
19).
Amidst these developments, the advent of VPZ heralds promising prospects in PUD management, offering potent and prolonged inhibition of gastric acid secretion. Clinical evidence suggests its efficacy in peptic ulcer healing and prevention, including cases associated with NSAIDs and low-dose aspirin (LDA)-related ulcers. Consequently, the revised guidelines underscore the pivotal role of VPZ in mitigating hemorrhagic ulcers and optimizing therapeutic outcomes in patients undergoing antithrombotic therapy (
15-
19).
Transitioning from a global perspective to a focused inquiry into the efficacy of gastroprotectant drugs in PUD management, a meta-analysis of randomized trials seeks to delineate the effects of PPIs, prostaglandin analogues, and H2Ras across diverse clinical contexts.